Machiavelli’s excerpt from The Prince discusses the ways in which a prince, ruling over a city, is able to retain his power. over a city that is accustomed to liberty. He can either rule from afar and lay waste to the city, or he can reside in the city and rule from within. Machiavelli’s cynical view of politics and republicanism is on full display when he notes that the ruler of a free city will either destroy the city himself or allow himself to be destroyed by the city. Machiavelli believes that republicanism and personal liberty will bring out the most dangerous and negative behavior in humans and will ultimately wage destruction on the city or state. There is a degree of power and control the prince must have, and a very clear separation from his followers/subjects in order for him to stay in power. The place of the prince is clearly constructed, stable, and exercises power from the center- he does not change or allow himself to be influenced by the changing tides of the state or its public opinions.
I think this connects to one of the discussions we had in class today, specifically about how our own truths and realities are often distorted because we could never understand the burden and position of being a leader. Likewise, the leader has a very different perception of reality since they do not understand the personal wants and needs of the followers- simply because they are not one of them. In Machiavelli’s case, he directly argues against the notion of the leader trying to understand the realities of his followers- precisely because Machiavelli believes the people, with too much power and liberty, will tear down societal and political institutions and cause chaos. Similarly, his quintessential idea of “the end justifying the means” calls into question the morals and the ethics of politicians. Are politicians required to make unjust, unethical decisions in order to preserve the state and keep the people safe? To what degree should the common people be informed of these decisions? Machiavelli’s answer is that the prince needs a stable, static role in the polity, or else the polity would cease to exist. This is a very pessimistic and cynical view of politics, but it is one of the concepts Machiavelli is most famous for. He also wrote much of his work in an increasingly unstable and chaotic state of Italian politics and social order, which likely explains his view of government and its role in the life of the people.
I also thought of our class discussion when I read this excerpt, and what stood out to me was how everything Machiavelli says about how a prince should rule goes against what we’ve been talking about in class. We have mostly agreed that leaders and followers need to be able to relate to each other and be in a more equal partnership, but Machiavelli argues that there should be a clear separation between leaders and followers. I think that it is interesting to compare these drastically different points of view, and most people would probably fall somewhere in the middle.
I think it is important that you mentioned Machiavelli’s principle of separating leaders and followers to assert where the power lies. I also think this means of creating rules are destined to destroy a city. Yes, it is true that leaders should be authoritative but as we learned from Plato’s allegory the followers truly dictate the path of the leader. By completely separating these two powers there will be miscommunication and lead to an inevitable downfall.
I found interesting how Machiavelli’s principle was separating leaders and followers. We talked about in class how they should be on the same page and we also talked about the concepts in the allegory in the cave where people don’t get the whole truth.